Forest Service: Status of Progress Toward Financial Accountability
(Letter Report, 02/27/98, GAO/AIMD-98-84).
Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO reviewed the Forest Service's
efforts to correct the financial problems identified in the Department
of Agriculture (USDA) Inspector General's (IG) audit report on its
fiscal year (FY) 1995 financial statements, focusing on the Forest
Service's: (1) implementation of a new financial accounting system; (2)
correction of certain accounting deficiencies; (3) resolution of key
staffing and financial management organizational issues; and (4)
commitment to achieving financial accountability.
GAO noted that: (1) the Forest Service has taken some positive steps to
address the accounting deficiencies cited in the IG's FY 1995 audit
report; (2) however, serious problems have been encountered in the
initial implementation of the new financial accounting system; (3) while
the Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO) and the Forest Service
piloted the Foundation Financial Information System (FFIS) in three
units as scheduled on October 1, 1997, problems with FFIS processing
data and transferring data between FFIS and other feeder systems have
hampered the implementation efforts; (4) also, the pilot units have not
been able to use FFIS to produce certain critical budgetary and
accounting reports that track the Forest Service's obligations, assets,
liabilities, revenues, and costs; (5) these problems occurred because:
(a) while most individual components of the system were tested, a
complete integrated test was not accomplished prior to implementation;
(b) the FFIS reporting mechanism, which was not fully tested prior to
implementation, was not functioning properly; (c) certain report
specifications and calculations were incorrect; and (d) budget balances
had not yet been brought forward from the old accounting system, which
is no longer functional for the pilot units; (6) failure to correct
these problems will jeopardize successful implementation of FFIS in the
remaining Forest Service units; (7) the Forest Service's ability to
produce reliable financial reports hinges on successful operation of the
new system; (8) the version of FFIS purchased by the UDSA OCFO in
December 1994 is not year 2000 compliant; (9) the Forest Service has
corrected some of the accounting deficiencies cited in the IG's 1995
audit report, it continues to have certain accounting problems, in
addition to those related to the FFIS system, that will hamper its
ability to produce reliable financial information and could expose the
agency to mismanagement and misuse of its assets; (10) the Forest
Service still lacks supporting records to substantiate, at a detailed
level, amounts the agency either owes or is owed by others; (11) the
Forest Service has not yet completed an evaluation of its financial
management structure and workload requirements at all levels; (12) the
Forest Service's top management has taken some steps to correct the
financial problems reported by the IG in the FY 1995 audit report; and
(13) however, the Forest Service's autonomous organizational structure
may hinder top management from making needed improvements by FY 1999.
--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------
REPORTNUM: AIMD-98-84
TITLE: Forest Service: Status of Progress Toward Financial
Accountability
DATE: 02/27/98
SUBJECT: Financial statement audits
Federal agency accounting systems
Accounting procedures
Data integrity
Financial records
Financial management systems
Systems conversions
IDENTIFIER: Forest Service Foundation Financial Information System
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a **
** GAO report. Delineations within the text indicating chapter **
** titles, headings, and bullets are preserved. Major **
** divisions and subdivisions of the text, such as Chapters, **
** Sections, and Appendixes, are identified by double and **
** single lines. The numbers on the right end of these lines **
** indicate the position of each of the subsections in the **
** document outline. These numbers do NOT correspond with the **
** page numbers of the printed product. **
** **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced. Tables are included, but **
** may not resemble those in the printed version. **
** **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed **
** document's contents. **
** **
** A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO **
** Document Distribution Center. For further details, please **
** send an e-mail message to: **
** **
** **
** **
** with the message 'info' in the body. **
******************************************************************
Cover
================================================================ COVER
Report to the Chairman, Committee on the Budget, House of
Representatives
February 1998
FOREST SERVICE - STATUS OF
PROGRESS TOWARD FINANCIAL
ACCOUNTABILITY
GAO/AIMD-98-84
Forest Service Financial Management Progress
(913820)
Abbreviations
=============================================================== ABBREV
CFO - Chief Financial Officer
FFIS - Foundation Financial Information
IG - Inspector General
OCFO - Office of the Chief Financial Officer
USDA - U.S. Department of Agriculture
Letter
=============================================================== LETTER
B-279017
February 27, 1998
The Honorable John R. Kasich
Chairman, Committee on the Budget
House of Representatives
Dear Mr. Chairman:
This is our third report to you on the financial problems of the
Forest Service initially identified in the U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA) Inspector General's (IG) audit report on the
Forest Service's fiscal year 1995 financial statements. Due to the
severity of the problems identified, you asked that we continue to
monitor, and periodically report on, the Forest Service's effort to
correct its accounting and financial reporting deficiencies.
Specifically, you asked us to monitor the Forest Service's (1)
implementation of a new financial accounting system, (2) correction
of certain accounting deficiencies, (3) resolution of key staffing
and financial management organizational issues, and (4) commitment to
achieving financial accountability.
BACKGROUND
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :1
In July 1996, the USDA IG concluded that the Forest Service's
financial statements for fiscal year 1995 were unreliable. The IG's
report cited numerous shortcomings in the Forest Service's accounting
and financial data and information systems that precluded the agency
from presenting accurate and complete financial information. For
example, in reporting its fiscal year 1995 financial results, the
Forest Service could not determine for what purposes $215 million of
its $3.4 billion in operating and program funds were spent. In
December 1996, we reported\1 on how the inaccuracy of the financial
statement data precluded the agency and the Congress from using this
financial data to help make informed decisions about future funding
for the Forest Service and raised questions about the reliability of
program performance measures and certain budget data.
Forest Service officials determined that corrective actions could not
be completed in time to improve the Forest Service's fiscal year 1996
financial data. As a result, the agency did not prepare financial
statements for fiscal year 1996. Instead, the Forest Service agreed
to a three-party effort (the Forest Service, USDA's Office of the
Chief Financial Officer (OCFO), and the IG) to correct the problems
identified in the fiscal year 1995 IG audit report.
On December 23, 1994, the Office of the Chief Financial Officer
purchased a new accounting system, the Foundation Financial
Information System (FFIS), to implement USDA-wide. Because of the
reported financial deficiencies at the Forest Service, it was decided
that the Forest Service would be one of the first USDA agencies to
implement FFIS. While the overall responsibility and oversight for
implementing FFIS rests with the USDA OCFO, implementation at the
Forest Service is a joint effort between the Forest Service and the
USDA OCFO. Forest Service management is responsible for the other
corrective measures that are required to achieve financial
accountability.
The Forest Service's goal was to correct some of the deficiencies
during fiscal year 1997 and to achieve financial accountability by
the end of fiscal year 1999. In August 1997, we reported to your
Committee\2 that it is doubtful that the Forest Service can achieve
financial accountability by the end of fiscal year 1999 if management
and staff commitment waver, planned tasks are not accomplished, and
sufficient resources are not provided.
--------------------
\1 Letter dated December 20, 1996, to the Chairman, House Committee
on the Budget (GAO/AIMD-97-11R).
\2 Financial Management: Forest Service's Progress Toward Financial
Accountability (GAO/AIMD-97-151R, August 29, 1997).
RESULTS IN BRIEF
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :2
The Forest Service has taken some positive steps to address the
accounting deficiencies cited in the IG's fiscal year 1995 audit
report. For example, the Forest Service has completed its equipment
inventories. However, much work remains. Most significantly,
serious problems have been encountered in the initial implementation
of the new financial accounting system. For example, while the OCFO
and the Forest Service piloted the new financial accounting system,
FFIS, in three units as scheduled on October 1, 1997, problems with
FFIS processing data and transferring data between FFIS and other
feeder systems have hampered the implementation efforts. Also, the
pilot units have not been able to use FFIS to produce certain
critical budgetary and accounting reports that track the Forest
Service's obligations, assets, liabilities, revenues, and costs.
These problems occurred because (1) while most individual components
of the system were tested, a complete integrated test was not
accomplished prior to implementation, (2) the FFIS reporting
mechanism, which was not fully tested prior to implementation, was
not functioning properly, (3) certain report specifications and
calculations were incorrect, and (4) budget balances had not yet been
brought forward from the old accounting system, which is no longer
functional for the pilot units.
Failure to correct these problems will jeopardize successful
implementation of FFIS in the remaining Forest Service units. The
Forest Service's ability to produce reliable financial reports hinges
on successful operation of the new system. In addition, the version
of FFIS purchased by the USDA OCFO in December 1994 is not Year 2000
compliant.\3 Therefore, additional challenges exist for the OCFO and
the Forest Service to ensure that FFIS, as well as all its mission
critical computer systems, complies with Year 2000 requirements prior
to the millennium.
While the Forest Service has corrected some of the accounting
deficiencies cited in the IG's 1995 audit report, it continues to
have certain accounting problems, in addition to those related to the
FFIS system, that will hamper its ability to produce reliable
financial information and could expose the agency to mismanagement
and misuse of its assets. For example, while some progress has been
made, the Forest Service cannot yet establish reliable account
balances for its land, buildings, and roads because it has not yet
completed inventories and valuations of these assets. According to
Forest Service officials, these inventories are scheduled to be
completed by June 30, 1998.
In addition, the Forest Service still lacks supporting records (a
subsidiary ledger system) to substantiate, at a detailed level,
amounts the agency either owes or is owed by others. Moreover, an IG
official told us in February 1998 that the Forest Service still lacks
adequate controls to ensure that all billings for timber sales and
other revenue-generating activities are submitted and accurately
recorded and recognized as revenue in a timely manner. Forest
Service managers' ability to accurately report program performance
measures as well as monitor revenue and spending levels will be
hampered until these shortcomings are addressed.
The Forest Service has not yet completed an evaluation of its
financial management structure and workload requirements at all
levels. Thus, it has no basis for determining if its current overall
financial management organizational structure and resources are
sufficient to accomplish the remaining tasks necessary to correct
financial deficiencies and maintain accountability. Further,
although the Forest Service has filled some key financial management
positions, vacancies exist in other key positions.
The Forest Service's top management has taken some steps to correct
the financial problems reported by the IG in the fiscal year 1995
audit report. However, the Forest Service's autonomous
organizational structure may hinder top management from making needed
improvements in all regions by fiscal year 1999. For example, one
region has not demonstrated the level of commitment needed to
effectively carry out planned corrective measures because of other
priorities of the Regional Forester. Strong leadership and
participation by all regions are key to ensuring that planned
improvements are made by the end of fiscal year 1999.
--------------------
\3 Year 2000 compliant relates to how computers will handle the date
change from December 31, 1999, to January 1, 2000. According to
USDA's Acting CFO, at the time the system was purchased from the
General Services Administration's Financial Management System
Software Multiple Award Schedule, no Year 2000 compliant version was
available.
OBJECTIVES, SCOPE, AND
METHODOLOGY
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :3
Our objectives were to monitor and report on the Forest Service's (1)
implementation of a new financial accounting system, (2) correction
of certain accounting deficiencies, (3) resolution of key staffing
and financial management organizational issues, and (4) commitment to
achieving financial accountability. We reviewed steps taken by the
Forest Service, USDA OCFO, and USDA IG to correct deficiencies in the
Forest Service's accounting and financial data and systems since we
last reported to you on August 29, 1997.
To assess the status of the Forest Service's (1) effort to improve
the reliability of its accounting and financial data and (2) its
commitment to improvement, we reviewed the Forest Service's financial
health monitoring reports, the Forest Service's Financial Management
Strategy and Action Plan, project management plans, and other
documents outlining improvement initiatives and their status. We
also attended planning conferences where progress and critical tasks
were identified, and interviewed regional and headquarters Forest
Service officials. In addition, we reviewed two internal USDA
assessments of FFIS implementation problems. We also interviewed IG
officials and USDA's Acting CFO about the status of the Forest
Service's corrective actions. We performed our review from September
1997 through February 1998 in accordance with generally accepted
government auditing standards. We requested comments on a draft of
this report from the Special Assistant to the Chief, Forest Service;
the Acting Deputy Chief of Operations, Forest Service; the Acting
Director of Financial Management, Forest Service; the Acting Chief
Financial Officer, USDA, and his staff; and staff from the IG's
office. These comments are discussed in the "Agency Comments and Our
Evaluation" section.
NEWLY PILOTED ACCOUNTING SYSTEM
FACES MAJOR HURDLES
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :4
The new accounting system, FFIS, being implemented at the Forest
Service is designed to be a fully integrated financial accounting and
reporting system that the Forest Service is counting on to correct
many of the agency's current financial shortcomings. FFIS was
piloted at the Forest Service in three units, representing about
one-third of all Forest Service transactions, as scheduled on October
1, 1997. However, the pilot units experienced many problems,
primarily related to transferring data from other feeder systems to
the new FFIS system. For example:
-- FFIS initially rejected 45 percent of the data transferred to it
from the procurement system, and the data had to be re-entered.
These rejects occurred for various reasons, including the two
systems maintaining inconsistent vendor data such as different
purchase order numbers for the same item.
-- The timber sales system could not transfer data to FFIS;
therefore, sales data had to be entered into FFIS manually.
-- About 1,200 outstanding travel orders had to be rekeyed because
the data in the new travel system could not be automatically
transferred to FFIS.
The agency is continuing to address these types of problems as they
are identified during the implementation process. In addition, the
agency's fiscal year 1998 first quarter budget execution reports that
are required by the Office of Management and Budget contained
estimated rather than actual amounts because FFIS could not generate
actual information. Unforeseen problems also have precluded the
pilot units from using FFIS to produce other critical budgetary and
financial reports that the Congress and the agency need to track
obligations, assets, liabilities, revenues, and costs.
These problems occurred, in part, because budgetary information had
not yet been brought forward from the old accounting system, which is
no longer functional in the pilot units. Also, the FFIS system
generates accounting information at the detailed transaction level,
but is currently unable to produce summary-level data needed to carry
prior year balances forward as well as to determine current balances.
The Forest Service subsequently discovered that its reports contained
errors in the logic used to compute summary balances. These errors
are being corrected. The overall problems with the system
implementation are reflective of the lack of complete integrated
testing of the system, including its reporting capability, prior to
implementation in the pilot units. Our prior work\4 at other
agencies has shown that the lack of adequate testing of systems
before piloting and implementation is one of the primary causes of
new systems implementation failures.
As a result of the reporting problems, the OCFO and the Forest
Service are revising the scheduled completion of FFIS implementation
in the pilot units from February 23, 1998, to March 30, 1998. The
Acting Director of Financial Management has a team, including region
and forest-level staff, at the National Finance Center working on
correcting the identified reporting deficiencies. According to the
USDA Acting CFO, the team plans to initially focus on monthly and
quarterly reporting requirements and will address year-end and other
reporting demands later in the fiscal year. If these problems are
not resolved, FFIS cannot be successfully implemented in the
remaining units as scheduled on October 1, 1998. Further, the
inability to produce budget and financial reports for the three pilot
units subjects the assets of these units to a high level of risk and
vulnerability to misuse.
Another issue that must be addressed is to ensure that FFIS, as well
as all other mission critical computer systems, is Year 2000
compliant. The Year 2000 problem is rooted in the way dates are
recorded and calculated in many computer systems. For the past
several decades, systems have typically used two digits to represent
the year in order to conserve on electronic data storage and reduce
operating costs. With this two-digit format, however, the year 2000
is indistinguishable from the year 1900. As a result, system or
application programs that use dates to perform calculations,
comparisons, or sorting may generate incorrect results when working
with years after 1999.
The version of FFIS purchased in 1994 and piloted in October 1997 is
not Year 2000 compliant. Forest Service officials and the USDA
Acting CFO told us that the FFIS pilot would have been delayed up to
1 year if the agency had waited for the vendor to release a Year 2000
compliant version of FFIS.
We did not assess the decision-making process for procuring FFIS or
the level of effort required to make the system Year 2000 compliant.
The Office of Management and Budget reported that as of November 15,
1997, USDA had demonstrated insufficient evidence of adequate Year
2000 progress. However, the USDA Acting CFO said that USDA is taking
steps to ensure that FFIS, as well as all other mission critical
financial systems, becomes Year 2000 compliant before January 1,
2000. He further stated that FFIS will be Year 2000 compliant by the
summer of 1998. We are initiating another assignment which will
examine Year 2000 issues in USDA.
--------------------
\4 Defense IRM: Critical Risks Facing New Material Management
Strategy (GAO/AIMD-96-109, September 6, 1996); Department of Energy:
Poor Management of Nuclear Materials Tracking System Makes Success
Unlikely (GAO/AIMD-95-165, August 3, 1995); and Executive Guide:
Improving Mission Performance Through Strategic Information
Management and Technology (GAO/AIMD-94-115, May 1994).
SOME ACCOUNTING DEFICIENCIES
CORRECTED BUT OTHERS REMAIN
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :5
The Forest Service has corrected some of the accounting deficiencies
identified in the IG's fiscal year 1995 audit report, but many of the
serious shortcomings that we reported on in December 1996 still
remain. The agency has implemented procedures and begun cleaning up
some of the erroneous data recorded in its old accounting system,
such as amounts other agencies owe to the Forest Service for work
performed on a reimbursable basis. This process should help ensure
that invalid data are not transferred to the new FFIS system.
However, the reported $7.8 billion in land, buildings, roads, and
equipment is still questionable because reliable values and
quantities for many of these assets have not been established.
Therefore, as we reported in December 1996, the Forest Service
continues to be exposed to mismanagement and misuse of these assets.
Each region was scheduled to complete equipment inventories verifying
that all items are accounted for by July 31, 1997. Written
certifications were due from the units to Financial Management staff
by September 30, 1997. However, one of the Forest Service's 10
regions\5 did not complete its certification until February 12, 1998.
The remaining inventories of land, buildings, and roads are to be
completed and certified by June 30, 1998. Until these counts are
completed and recorded in the accounting records, the correct
quantities and costs of these assets will not be determinable.
Therefore, the Congress cannot be assured that Forest Service
requests for funds related to roads and buildings are fully
warranted.
In addition, the Forest Service still lacks supporting records (a
subsidiary ledger system) to substantiate, at a detailed level,
amounts the agency owes to others (accounts payable) or is owed by
others (accounts receivable). Also, an IG official told us in
February 1998 that the Forest Service still lacks adequate controls
to ensure that all billings for timber sales and other
revenue-generating activities are submitted and accurately recorded
and recognized as income in a timely manner.
Good internal controls over accounts payable and accounts receivable
are critical to effective cash management. For example, if the
Forest Service underbills a customer, does not bill a customer, or
does not collect from a customer because of weak controls over its
accounts receivable, it may have fewer funds to carry out its mission
or it may require additional appropriations from the Congress. For
fiscal year 1995, the Forest Service reported accounts receivable of
$192 million and accounts payable of $298 million.
Further, until the Forest Service completes its asset inventories and
valuations and implements better controls over receivables and
payables, Forest Service managers' ability to accurately report
program performance measures as well as monitor revenue and spending
levels will be hampered.
--------------------
\5 The Forest Service has 10 regions, including the Washington
Regional Office, and 7 Research Stations.
SOME STAFFING ISSUES RESOLVED
BUT KEY POSITIONS STILL VACANT
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :6
The Forest Service has a designated staff person to direct Forest
Service aspects of FFIS implementation activities on a full-time
basis. This individual is responsible for working closely with the
Forest Service, OCFO, and an outside contractor to oversee
implementation of the new system.
In addition, key vacant financial management positions have been
advertised and job offers have been made to some applicants.
However, the Director and Deputy Director positions for Financial
Management in Washington, D.C., have been vacant since October 3,
1997, and January 1, 1998, respectively, due to retirements. A
Regional Fiscal Director is currently serving as Acting Director
until this Senior Executive Service position, which is not within the
exclusive hiring authority\6 of the Forest Service, is filled. These
positions require staff possessing a strong financial management
background, including experience in accounting, budgeting, and
financial systems. These positions are important to the
implementation of FFIS as well as continuation of day-to-day Forest
Service operations. Forest Service officials said they anticipate
that all key financial management vacancies will be filled by March
1998.
The Forest Service still has not concluded its evaluation of the
agency's overall financial management structure and workload
requirements at all levels. Under the Forest Service's current
financial management organizational structure, the budget office
reports to the Deputy Chief for Programs and Legislation, while the
financial management office reports to the Deputy Chief for
Operations.\7 An accounting firm is currently evaluating the
financial management organizational structure, workload, and staffing
levels for the Forest Service. According to the Acting Director of
Financial Management, this firm is scheduled to issue its report in
March 1998. As we reported in August 1997, until this evaluation is
completed, the Forest Service cannot determine if its current overall
financial management organizational structure and resources are
sufficient to accomplish the remaining tasks required to achieve
financial accountability within established time frames.
--------------------
\6 According to a Forest Service official, Senior Executive Service
positions must be recommended by a panel composed of Forest Service
staff and representatives from other USDA agencies.
\7 USDA as a whole has the same financial management organizational
structure.
SUSTAINED LEADERSHIP AND
COMMITMENT OF ALL KEY STAFF ARE
NEEDED
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :7
Top management (Forest Service Chief, Special Assistant to the Chief,
and Acting Deputy Chief of Operations) has taken several steps to
make needed improvements. For example, Forest Service officials have
dedicated resources to implement corrective measures, participated in
numerous planning sessions where critical tasks were discussed and
milestones were established, and emphasized to staff the need to
establish financial accountability.
In addition, top management has initiated bimonthly meetings with
Fiscal Directors from the 10 Forest Service regions and 7 Research
Stations to monitor the overall financial management improvement
effort, including FFIS implementation activities, and ensure that (1)
initiatives are implemented as planned and (2) obstacles are
identified and removed. Further, management has continued to stress
the importance of financial management by including it as a
performance rating element for both Fiscal Directors and Regional
Foresters.
Fiscal Directors or other key fiscal staff from 9 of the 10 regions
participated in a recent planning meeting where the three pilot units
presented information on implementation problems and provided advice
on how the remaining regions could better prepare for successful FFIS
implementation. Participants also reviewed the agency's FFIS
implementation plan, identified and discussed remaining activities,
and discussed ways to address staff shortages. Given the importance
of this meeting to the success of implementing FFIS agencywide, the
absence of one region--which accounts for 12 percent of the Forest
Service's budget--raises concern about the region's commitment and
top management's ability to effectively lead this effort toward
financial accountability.
The Forest Service's autonomous structure may hinder top management's
ability to get all Regional Fiscal Directors to participate.
Regional Fiscal Directors are under the direct authority of their
respective Regional Foresters, who report to the Chief of the Forest
Service rather than to the Deputy Chief of Operations. The Deputy
Chief of Operations, located in the national office, oversees
implementation of FFIS for the Forest Service. We were told that the
Fiscal Director from the one region--the same region that was about 5
months late certifying equipment inventories--was absent due to other
priorities of the Regional Forester.
Strong leadership in resolving the remaining obstacles and
participation by all regions are required throughout the effort for
the Forest Service to achieve and sustain financial accountability by
the end of fiscal year 1999 and thereafter.
CONCLUSIONS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :8
While corrective measures are underway, few of the problems reported
by the IG in the fiscal year 1995 audit report and that we analyzed
in our initial report to you have been fully resolved. In addition,
new hurdles such as FFIS' current inability to generate budgetary and
financial reports and the need to satisfactorily resolve the Year
2000 issue must be addressed. It is not yet clear whether the Forest
Service will be successful in its efforts to resolve these problems
by the end of fiscal year 1999. Much work still remains to be done
before this goal can be achieved.
AGENCY COMMENTS AND OUR
EVALUATION
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :9
We received oral comments from the Special Assistant to the Chief,
Forest Service; the Acting Deputy Chief of Operations, Forest
Service; the Acting Director of Financial Management, Forest Service;
the Acting Chief Financial Officer, USDA, and his staff; and staff
from the IG's office. The following issues were raised during our
discussion.
-- Forest Service and OCFO officials stated that, as with any major
system implementation, they anticipated problems with
implementing FFIS in the pilot units and stated they are moving
to deal with problems identified.
-- Forest Service officials did not agree with our assessment of
the agency's autonomous structure and how that might hinder top
management's ability to ensure that all Regional Fiscal
Directors participate in the financial management improvement
effort. The Acting Deputy Chief of Operations said that the
current structure does not prevent him from achieving his
financial management goals because he works very closely with
all the Regional Foresters on these issues. Also, he stated
that discussions have been held with the Regional Forester and
Fiscal Director of the region that has not fully participated in
the financial improvement efforts. He added that this region
will fully participate from now on.
-- Forest Service and OCFO officials believed that more emphasis on
the progress they have made in correcting the identified
financial management deficiencies should have been included in
the report.
Regarding the first issue, the number and nature of problems
encountered during the FFIS pilot indicate that additional testing
was needed. Such testing should have identified many of these
problems, which could have been resolved before FFIS was piloted.
Second, we believe that for this effort to be successful the Deputy
Chief for Operations must take whatever action is necessary to ensure
that Regional Fiscal Directors focus their priorities on correcting
the identified financial management deficiencies. Finally, we agree
that some progress has been made in correcting financial management
deficiencies and revised certain sections of the report to better
reflect this.
These officials also provided clarifying comments that we
incorporated into our report as appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :9.1
We are sending copies of this report to the Ranking Minority Member
of your Committee; the Secretary of Agriculture; the Chief of the
Forest Service; the Special Assistant to the Chief; USDA's Acting
Chief Financial Officer; the Acting Deputy Chief of Operations; the
Acting Director of Financial Management; the Director of the Office
of Management and Budget; and other interested parties. Copies will
also be made available to others upon request.
We will continue to monitor the Forest Service's effort and report to
you. If you have any questions about this report, please call me at
(202) 512-8341 or McCoy Williams, Assistant Director, at (202)
512-6906. Major contributors to this report are listed in appendix
I.
Sincerely yours,
Linda M. Calbom
Director, Resources, Community,
and Economic Development, Accounting
and Financial Management Issues
MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS REPORT
=========================================================== Appendix I
ACCOUNTING AND INFORMATION
MANAGEMENT DIVISION, WASHINGTON,
D. C.
McCoy Williams, Assistant Director
Meg Mills, Communications Analyst
KANSAS CITY REGIONAL OFFICE
Anita Lenoir, Auditor-in-Charge
Maria Rodriguez, Auditor
*** End of document. ***